Rush, Newspeak and Fascism: An Exegesis By David Neiwert 1 Introduction Is fascism an obsolete term? Even if it resurrects itself as a significant political threat, can we use the term with any effectiveness? My friend John McKay, discussing the matter at his weblog archy [http://johnmckay.blogspot.com/], wonders if the degraded state of the term has rendered it useless. After all, it has in many respects become a catchall for any kind of totalitarianism, rather than the special and certainly cause-specific phenomenon it was. Anyone using the word nowadays is most often merely participating in this degradation. Nonetheless, I think Robert O. Paxton has it right in his essay “The Five Stages of Fascism”: We cannot give up in the face of these difficulties. A real phenomenon exists. Indeed, fascism is the most original political novelty of the twentieth century, no less. … If we cannot examine fascism synthetically, we risk being unable to understand this century, or the next. We must have a word, and for lack of a better one, we must employ the word that Mussolini borrowed from the vocabulary of the Italian Left in 1919, before his movement had assumed its mature form. Obliged to use the term fascism, we ought to use it well. The following essay is devoted to that idea. Its purpose is, if nothing else, to give the reader a clear understanding of fascism not merely as an historical force but a living one. The essay originally appeared as a series of posts at my weblog Orcinus [http://[email protected]], sparked by an erroneous report of something Rush Limbaugh reportedly had told his radio audience. The error was soon corrected, but the remarks had in any event stirred me to write about my concerns about the way the political climate in America is heading, based on material and information I’d been gathering on a variety of issues pertaining to the radical right and its increasing ideological traffic with mainstream conservatism. Because Orcinus is generally intended as an actual journal — a place for me to work out writing ideas and to post original source material on news stories and events that interest me — much of what appeared on the blog was in many ways a rough draft. Moreover, since it is a public enterprise, I obtained much feedback during the course of writing it, some of which affected the content and nature of the essay and appears in the current text. The version that appears before you is, of course, considerably edited and rewritten. There is a good deal of new material that did not appear anywhere on the blog. Whole sections have been rearranged and edited down, and the order of the argument is not exactly what appears on the blog. In this respect, it may be an instructive exercise for anyone interested in the writing process to compare the two; but in any event, this version is the definitive edition, since a number of errors and repetitions, as well as logical missteps, can be found in the rough draft, naturally. While I establish early in the essay that this is an attempt at a “scholarly” discussion of fascism, I should however clarify that I am in fact merely a journalist, not a scholar, nor do I pretend to be one. The following essay is more in the way of a journalistic survey of the academic literature regarding fascism, and an attempt at a kind of lay analysis of the literature’s contents as it relates to the current political context. However, none of the ideas regarding the core of fascism, nor its many accompanying traits, are my own. “Rush” is mostly drawn from a body of scholarly work on fascism that’s broadly accepted as the important texts on the subject, and I’ll urge anyone interested in examining the matter seriously to read them. There’s a bibliography at the end. 2 The core of my interest in fascism is closely connected to my work in trying to understand the motivations of right-wing extremists, because my experience was that in most regards many of these folks were seemingly ordinary people. And I was furthermore intrigued by the historical phenomenon of the Holocaust, particularly the problem of how a nation full ordinary people could allow such a monstrosity to happen. I’m interested in fascism as a real-world phenomenon and not an abstract and distant concept. As such, I’m hoping this essay if nothing else helps advance a wider understanding of fascism in the general public, because I’ve come to understand that this awareness is essential if we are to combat it. I’d like to thank the many people who have contributed to “Rush” both in the collection of material beforehand as well as during the writing process: My fellow bloggers who contributed ideas and points that became part of the text, including John McKay at archy; James R. Maclean at The Watch [http://mars-or-bust.blogspot.com]; Richard Einhorn at Tristero [http://tristero.blogspot.com/]; Dave Johnson at Seeing the Forest [http://seetheforest.blogspot.com]; and Gil Smart at Smart Remarks [http://smartremarks.blogspot.com/] • The many other bloggers whose links to the essay have contributed mightily to its seeming popularity, and whose abiding interest in my work at Orcinus is deeply appreciated: Atrios at Eschaton [http://atrios.blogspot.com]; Avedon Carol at Sideshow [http://www.sideshow.idps.co.uk]; Kynn Bartlett at Shock and Awe [http://shock-awe.info]; Ginger Mayerson at Hackenblog [http://hackenbush.org/hackenblog]; Jeralyn Merritt at TalkLeft [http://www.talkleft.com]; Mark Woods at wood s lot [http://www.ncf.ca/~ek867/wood_s_lot.html]; Patrick Nielsen Hayden at Electrolite [http://nielsenhayden.com/electrolyte]; Richard at Peking Duck [http://pekingduck.blogspot.com]; Bryant at Population: One [http://popone.innocence.com/index.php]; Chris Woolery at Hegemoney.com [http://www.hegemoney.com/]; Digby at Hullabaloo [http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/]; Kevin Hayden at Reach M High Cowboy Network Noose [http://reachm.blog-city.com]; John Constantine at Hellblazer [http://www.hellblazer.com/]; Michael Finley at world gone wrong [http://www.xanga.com/skin.asp?user=mfinley]; Christian at Radio Free Blogistan [http://radiofreeblogistan.com]; Lisa English at Ruminate This [http://www.ruminatethis.com/]; John Emerson at Zizka [http://www.johnjemerson.com/zizka.zizka.htm]; and many others who I’m sure I managed to overlook. Many, many thanks to Jennifer at Media Whores Online [http://www.mediawhoresonline.com/] for the many links. • A very special thanks to Paula at Stonerwitch [http://stonerwitch.net/index.php], who not only contributed ideas but who volunteered the time and effort required to convert “Rush” to a PDF file. • The many readers who wrote in to express their interest, and particularly those who contributed their thoughts, many of which made their way into the text: Matthew Davis, Christopher Skinner, John Burns, and the pseudonymous Farmer. • Mark Pitcavage of the Anti-Defamation League, Mark Potok of the Southern Poverty Law Center, and Chip Berlet of Political Research Associates for their regular advice and contributing interviews. • Brenda Kitterman of Not In Our Town for inviting me to Kalispell; and Paul deArmond of Public Good for keeping me informed about events in Bellingham. 3 • Last but not least: My wife, Lisa Dowling, whose remarkable ability at keeping the ship afloat is what enables me to write, and whose patience with my disappearance into the shop seems endless; and my daughter Fiona Rose, whose sweet nature often allowed me to keep working while she played with her colors, books and blocks, and whose smile always reawakens that old desire to make the world a better place. David Neiwert Seattle June 2003 4 I: Projecting Fascism Rush Limbaugh likes to call himself “the most dangerous man in America.” He offers this epithet tongue in cheek on his radio program, but the truth is, he isn’t kidding. Over the decade and more that Limbaugh has ruled America’s talk-radio landscape, it has become inescapably clear that he is, if nothing else, certainly the most dangerous demagogue in America, maybe in history. In terms of his breadth of reach as a political propagandist, he has no real parallel in American history. The closest might be the Rev. Charles E. Coughlin, known to his radio audience of the 1920s and ‘30s as “Father Coughlin.” Coughlin started out as an anti-communist firebrand, and by 1930, his weekly broadcasts reached an audience estimated at 45 million. (Limbaugh claims a weekly audience of 20 million.) He was a major supporter of Franklin Roosevelt in 1932, but turned on FDR shortly afterward and became a severe critic of the administration through most of its tenure. Coughlin, who was attracted to the Jewish conspiracy theories promulgated by Henry Ford’s 1932 anti- Semitic tome, The International Jew, became increasingly extremist in his tone and delivery, accusing FDR of being a tool of the evil cabal that secretly ran the world. He was a significant spokesman for the “America First” movement, which advocated American non-involvement in the growing strife in Europe and Asia. And he was an inspiration for a whole generation of anti-Semites who went on to found such movements as Christian Identity and Posse Comitatus. Limbaugh, in contrast, has always carefully eschewed conspiracy theories and anti-Semitism. Through most of the first decade of his radio career, his primary shtick has been to rail against the government and its supposed takeover of our daily lives. This anti-government propaganda has served one main purpose: To drive a wedge between middle- and lower-class workers and the one entity that has the capability to protect them from the ravages of wealthy class warriors and swarms of corporate wolves.